Well Obama did it. Truly amazing. Truly historic.
His acceptance speech drew greatly on Abraham Lincoln's speeches, and Martin Luther King's Mountain Top Speech. In that speech MLK said the following:
"Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!".
Obama in his speech tonight said:
"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America – I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you – we as a people will get there."
It's not surprising that Obama did reference MLK's speech - for a black man of his generation that speech and the "I have a dream" one would be ingrained in his consciousness. He would be able to recite whole passages of both by heart, I would think.
His speech tonight was very, very good. Presidential, not partisan. The tone is difficult at such time, and he got it right I think - at times it is almost religious like, especially when the crowd repeats "Yes we can" after he does.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 40 years time another young President draws on it in his/her acceptance speech, having memorized whole passages by heart as a child.
Can't wait for his inauguration in January.
It must also be said that John McCain was also very gracious in his concession speech.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election realtime update
Have decided to try this realtime update of the elction results. Check back during the day to see how it's all going.
One Day More
Well the US Election is under 24 hours away.
In all 50 states, except for Maine and Nebraska, it's a winner takes all system. So if you poll one more vote than your opponent in California you get 55 votes, your opponent gets zero. It's for this reason that the 2000 election was so controversial. Bush beat Gore overall by 271 electoral votes to 266. Bush won Florida by 537 actual votes - or 0.0092% of the total votes cast in that state. Had Gore won Florida, he would have ended up with 291 electoral votes, Bush - 246; and the world would be a much different place.
It's all over of course - Obama will win it easily (as smart people predicted a while back! - hey my horse in the Melbourne Cup ran nowhere so I'm going to milk picking Obama for as much as I can).
Today's Gallup Poll has Obama up 53-40 with registered voters, and up 53-42 with likely voters.
As voting is not compulsory, polling companies always have to try and work out if the person they are asking will actually vote. It also means the political parties not only have to convince the voters to support them, they have to do all they can to get them to the polling booth.
Of course the overall percentage doesn't matter a great deal - what is important is the electoral vote count. In the Presidential election, each state gets a certain number of "electoral college votes" based on the population of the state. So California gets 55 votes; New York 31; and little Alaska gets only 3. All up there are 538 votes, so 270 will give you the keys to the White House.
In all 50 states, except for Maine and Nebraska, it's a winner takes all system. So if you poll one more vote than your opponent in California you get 55 votes, your opponent gets zero. It's for this reason that the 2000 election was so controversial. Bush beat Gore overall by 271 electoral votes to 266. Bush won Florida by 537 actual votes - or 0.0092% of the total votes cast in that state. Had Gore won Florida, he would have ended up with 291 electoral votes, Bush - 246; and the world would be a much different place. The polls at the moment have Obama winning around 278 electoral votes without too much trouble. McCain looks likely to be able to count on 132. There are then 138 electoral votes up for grabs in states where the polling is a bit closer. Most of these are predicted to split 50:50 with Obama ending up with 338 to McCain's 200.
Over on intrade - which has people buying "shares" in Obama or McCain, the prediction is Obama winning 364 - 174; (and incidentally that is my prediction as well).
By comparison Clinton beat Bob Dole in 1996, 379-159; and he beat Bush Sr in 1992, 370-168. So it won't be record breaking win by any means but comfortable nonetheless. Reagan of course is the king of elections. In 1984 he beat Walter Mondale 525-13 (Mondale only won his home state of Minnesota). Mondale's VP candidate of course was the first female to run for the office, Geraldine Ferraro.
So that's it. All over bar the actual running of the thing! His inauguration address should be a corker. But will he be any good? Who knows really. Here's hoping.
And to go out with, here's a great clip that was shown on last Sunday's Insiders. It is a brilliant editing of the 3 Presidential debates, and it is worth remembering the next time an opposition leader demands more than one debate before an election.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Opinionated fact
There was an interesting opinion piece by Glenn Milne in today's The Australian. And by interesting, I mean interesting to see how a supposedly top journalist uses facts.
The premise of his article was that, based on the turnover of staff in the Ministerial offices, the Government was running its staff ragged, and the Government itself was off the rails.
The fact Milne cites is that "in the seven months from January to August, the Government lost 63 personal staff and 27 DLOs." (DLOs are Departmental Liaison Officers - public servants working in the Ministerial office for 12 months as a conduit between the advisers and the department.)
What Milne fails to mention is that this rate of turnover is more or less par for the course in the first year of a new government. Often public servants will take on a role of advisor to assist in the transition. I know personally of one public servant who was asked to act as an advisor for a Minister until a permanent one was appointed. From memory she held the job from just after the election till around February - meaning she would be one of the number Milne is using to establish burn out.
The same exists for DLOs. Usually when a government changes, the DLOs change. Sometimes this can take a while, and thus it would not have been unusual for the old DLO to stay on board until the new DLO takes up the position (which could have been as late as February). Some of course find the hours too much - when parliament is sitting, you can be expected to stick around till late - and thus will quit and go back to the Department and the standard public servant hours.
And yet Milne comes out with the following:
The Government will say that some of those DLO appointments were anyhow temporary secondments, but the unusually high number of public servants going through the revolving doors that are Rudd ministers' offices suggests that if you aren't a fierce Labor loyalist, there's not much to like about working for this Government.
Fierce Labor loyalist? Well for a start DLOs are public servants and thus are not there to do political advisory type roles - indeed they should be neutral (though of course often people will only agree to take the role if they have some sympathy for the Government's policy - but not necessarily). Secondly, the Minister's office does not revolve around the DLO, so I wouldn't be too concerned if they were being worked hard, there's always someone in the Department more than happy enough to take on the role (it looks pretty good on the CV).
Milne also focuses on Chiefs of Staff:
Since January, the administration has cast off five chiefs of staff, all from critically important portfolios. Those chiefs of staff worked for the following ministers: Prime Minister (David Epstein), Health Minister (Michael Reid), Defence Minister (Daniel Cotterill), Foreign Affairs Minister (Paul Grigson) and Climate Change Minister (David Fredericks).
Milne decides to point out some reality:
To be fair, Fredericks is now deputy chief of staff to the PM, and Grigson, a career Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officer, never wanted the job of chief of staff to Stephen Smith.
But he neglects to mention Epstein took on the role of Rudd's CoS purely as a short term role, as reported when he resigned:
"Originally Kevin and I came up with a scam that I'd stay for literally a week after the poll, win, lose or draw," Mr Epstein told AAP. On the cusp of Labor's November 24 election win, Mr Epstein decided to stay on a little longer.
Instead Milne carries on:
Nevertheless, this does not detract from the bigger picture: five cabinet ministers have been disrupted by the departure of a chief of staff.
Well yes, but Milne himself established that 1 of the 5 has moved up to work with Rudd, 1 other was purely only a temp position anyway, and he has also ignored Epstein who was also a temp. So that brings it down to 2 Chiefs of Staff have left for unknown reasons. Hardly a flood...
But still never let Milne pause for logic to take hold; rather he prefers to throw in the following line:
Apart from the loss of valuable corporate memory, the thing about this killer pace is that it does not lead to good decision-making. Witness the bank deposits guarantee, which has run off the rails for want of thinking through the implications for other financial institutions.
Well for a start the bank deposits guarantee was a decision made by the Strategic and Budget Committee of Cabinet on the advice of Treasury, the RBA and APRA not "the bunch of 20-somethings who don't have families" (as Milne describes the remaining Ministerial staff); and second it has not gone off the rails. He fails to point out that half of the management funds froze their accounts BEFORE the Government guaranteed bank deposits. As reported in the SMH:
Of the 69 individual funds that have been frozen in some way, 36 closed up shop after the guarantee was introduced on October 12, affecting $15 billion of investor funds. All the big names have imposed restrictions on withdrawals, including Perpetual, AXA, Challenger, Australian Unity, AMP Capital and APN.
So 36 froze after, meaning 33 had already frozen when the Government acted on Oct 12. Hardly gives one the ability to suggest it's all the fault of the Government then - though of course Julie Bishop does, today she said:
If the Government had not put in place an unlimited guarantee in the first place this would never have occurred.
No word yet though whether she said the words or just read what someone else had written for her...
Then again Bishop has also come out today and said this of the Government's IR legislation:
"The Government should rethink its roll back of workplace relations reforms," she said.
"The Government should pull the unfair dismissal legislation that it is proposing to impose on small businesses across Australia. The laws that Labor are proposing are job destroying."
The opposition IR spokesman, Michael Keenan, must just love her saying that, especially as last Friday he said:
"When the electorate delivers you a verdict on a particular policy, you don't turn around and argue the toss with them," he said. "We therefore accept that the Government has a right to make changes to our workplace relations system in keeping with the policy announced prior to the last election."
After he said that I was worried how the ALP would be able to use IR as a political weapon - so thank you Julie Bishop for giving Julia Gillard a huge stick with which to beat the opposition all Question Time next week... (my tip - Bishop will be moved out of the Treasury position over the Christmas break - bold I know, but it's what I would do were I Turnbull).
But I digress. Back to Glenn Milne.
He ends with this anecdote:
I interviewed Rudd a few weeks back. It was a generally gregarious affair. But I could not help but take note of the number of times he referred details of questions I'd put to him to his staff for further checking with ministers.
It's not that I didn't appreciate the attention to detail and accuracy. But as I walked out of the PM's office at 8pm that day, it struck me how many staffers and ministers would be chasing up Rudd's requirements in order to get back to me when I would have been satisfied with broadly political answers.
So Milne is criticising Rudd for not giving him the standard guff, but actually being determined to give the journalist the accurate details. Bizarre - Milne in effect is saying Rudd should be more evasive. Inconceivable.
He then ends with this little opinion disguised as fact:
In Canberra, bureaucrats are amazed at the disconnect between Rudd's poll figures and what they see as a largely dysfunctional Government. The breakdown of staff turnover suggests it's the bureaucrats who have got it right.
Really? How many have you asked Glenn? What's your sample size?
This type of line is the same as the bull perpetuated last year when journos like Milne would say the Howard Government is doing a good job, and the polls didn't really make sense in those good economic times.
Thankfully the Government doesn't just have to satisfy Milne's public servant drinking buddies. Since Rudd has taken over the leadership of the ALP, the ALP has won every single poll. Since the financial crisis really broke his standing has improved and the ALP is certainly not losing any support.
Look, I don't think Rudd's work style is perfect. I certainly don't think his office is perfect - it does seem to be lacking a Leo McGarry - an old friend who is perhaps the only one around who can tell Rudd that an idea of his stinks. (But then one hopes Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan or Lindsay Tanner can do that). I do think there should be larger numbers in the office.
However, Milne's article is not analysis, and it's not good journalism. He has taken data and assumed it proves his own assumptions. I realise it was placed under the "opinion" banner in The Australian. Yet, no doubt his assumption in it will find its way into his articles written under the guise of "journalism", and presented as statistical fact. Journalists more and more want to be commentators when it pleases them, and assume the readers are aware of which hat they are wearing.
It's why I like Peter Martin's approach. He writes economic journalism for The Age, and has his own blog which will have opinion. He will often include his Age articles on the blog, but I have yet to see the opinions from his blog surface in The Age.
The mixing of opinion writer and journalist means that it gets to the point where The Australian's political affairs editor Dennis Shanahan can get described on Lateline as a "conservative commentator". For mine such a situation is worse than the cash for comment scandal of talk-back radio hosts; it's hard for readers to know when opinion ends and journalism starts - unlike the radio hosts, Milne and co aren't trying to flog off the latest range of Toyotas.
The premise of his article was that, based on the turnover of staff in the Ministerial offices, the Government was running its staff ragged, and the Government itself was off the rails.
The fact Milne cites is that "in the seven months from January to August, the Government lost 63 personal staff and 27 DLOs." (DLOs are Departmental Liaison Officers - public servants working in the Ministerial office for 12 months as a conduit between the advisers and the department.)
What Milne fails to mention is that this rate of turnover is more or less par for the course in the first year of a new government. Often public servants will take on a role of advisor to assist in the transition. I know personally of one public servant who was asked to act as an advisor for a Minister until a permanent one was appointed. From memory she held the job from just after the election till around February - meaning she would be one of the number Milne is using to establish burn out.
The same exists for DLOs. Usually when a government changes, the DLOs change. Sometimes this can take a while, and thus it would not have been unusual for the old DLO to stay on board until the new DLO takes up the position (which could have been as late as February). Some of course find the hours too much - when parliament is sitting, you can be expected to stick around till late - and thus will quit and go back to the Department and the standard public servant hours.
And yet Milne comes out with the following:
The Government will say that some of those DLO appointments were anyhow temporary secondments, but the unusually high number of public servants going through the revolving doors that are Rudd ministers' offices suggests that if you aren't a fierce Labor loyalist, there's not much to like about working for this Government.
Fierce Labor loyalist? Well for a start DLOs are public servants and thus are not there to do political advisory type roles - indeed they should be neutral (though of course often people will only agree to take the role if they have some sympathy for the Government's policy - but not necessarily). Secondly, the Minister's office does not revolve around the DLO, so I wouldn't be too concerned if they were being worked hard, there's always someone in the Department more than happy enough to take on the role (it looks pretty good on the CV).
Milne also focuses on Chiefs of Staff:
Since January, the administration has cast off five chiefs of staff, all from critically important portfolios. Those chiefs of staff worked for the following ministers: Prime Minister (David Epstein), Health Minister (Michael Reid), Defence Minister (Daniel Cotterill), Foreign Affairs Minister (Paul Grigson) and Climate Change Minister (David Fredericks).
Milne decides to point out some reality:
To be fair, Fredericks is now deputy chief of staff to the PM, and Grigson, a career Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officer, never wanted the job of chief of staff to Stephen Smith.
But he neglects to mention Epstein took on the role of Rudd's CoS purely as a short term role, as reported when he resigned:
"Originally Kevin and I came up with a scam that I'd stay for literally a week after the poll, win, lose or draw," Mr Epstein told AAP. On the cusp of Labor's November 24 election win, Mr Epstein decided to stay on a little longer.
Instead Milne carries on:
Nevertheless, this does not detract from the bigger picture: five cabinet ministers have been disrupted by the departure of a chief of staff.
Well yes, but Milne himself established that 1 of the 5 has moved up to work with Rudd, 1 other was purely only a temp position anyway, and he has also ignored Epstein who was also a temp. So that brings it down to 2 Chiefs of Staff have left for unknown reasons. Hardly a flood...
But still never let Milne pause for logic to take hold; rather he prefers to throw in the following line:
Apart from the loss of valuable corporate memory, the thing about this killer pace is that it does not lead to good decision-making. Witness the bank deposits guarantee, which has run off the rails for want of thinking through the implications for other financial institutions.
Well for a start the bank deposits guarantee was a decision made by the Strategic and Budget Committee of Cabinet on the advice of Treasury, the RBA and APRA not "the bunch of 20-somethings who don't have families" (as Milne describes the remaining Ministerial staff); and second it has not gone off the rails. He fails to point out that half of the management funds froze their accounts BEFORE the Government guaranteed bank deposits. As reported in the SMH:
Of the 69 individual funds that have been frozen in some way, 36 closed up shop after the guarantee was introduced on October 12, affecting $15 billion of investor funds. All the big names have imposed restrictions on withdrawals, including Perpetual, AXA, Challenger, Australian Unity, AMP Capital and APN.
So 36 froze after, meaning 33 had already frozen when the Government acted on Oct 12. Hardly gives one the ability to suggest it's all the fault of the Government then - though of course Julie Bishop does, today she said:
If the Government had not put in place an unlimited guarantee in the first place this would never have occurred.
No word yet though whether she said the words or just read what someone else had written for her...
Then again Bishop has also come out today and said this of the Government's IR legislation:
"The Government should rethink its roll back of workplace relations reforms," she said.
"The Government should pull the unfair dismissal legislation that it is proposing to impose on small businesses across Australia. The laws that Labor are proposing are job destroying."
The opposition IR spokesman, Michael Keenan, must just love her saying that, especially as last Friday he said:
"When the electorate delivers you a verdict on a particular policy, you don't turn around and argue the toss with them," he said. "We therefore accept that the Government has a right to make changes to our workplace relations system in keeping with the policy announced prior to the last election."
After he said that I was worried how the ALP would be able to use IR as a political weapon - so thank you Julie Bishop for giving Julia Gillard a huge stick with which to beat the opposition all Question Time next week... (my tip - Bishop will be moved out of the Treasury position over the Christmas break - bold I know, but it's what I would do were I Turnbull).
But I digress. Back to Glenn Milne.
He ends with this anecdote:
I interviewed Rudd a few weeks back. It was a generally gregarious affair. But I could not help but take note of the number of times he referred details of questions I'd put to him to his staff for further checking with ministers.
It's not that I didn't appreciate the attention to detail and accuracy. But as I walked out of the PM's office at 8pm that day, it struck me how many staffers and ministers would be chasing up Rudd's requirements in order to get back to me when I would have been satisfied with broadly political answers.
So Milne is criticising Rudd for not giving him the standard guff, but actually being determined to give the journalist the accurate details. Bizarre - Milne in effect is saying Rudd should be more evasive. Inconceivable.
He then ends with this little opinion disguised as fact:
In Canberra, bureaucrats are amazed at the disconnect between Rudd's poll figures and what they see as a largely dysfunctional Government. The breakdown of staff turnover suggests it's the bureaucrats who have got it right.
Really? How many have you asked Glenn? What's your sample size?
This type of line is the same as the bull perpetuated last year when journos like Milne would say the Howard Government is doing a good job, and the polls didn't really make sense in those good economic times.
Thankfully the Government doesn't just have to satisfy Milne's public servant drinking buddies. Since Rudd has taken over the leadership of the ALP, the ALP has won every single poll. Since the financial crisis really broke his standing has improved and the ALP is certainly not losing any support.
Look, I don't think Rudd's work style is perfect. I certainly don't think his office is perfect - it does seem to be lacking a Leo McGarry - an old friend who is perhaps the only one around who can tell Rudd that an idea of his stinks. (But then one hopes Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan or Lindsay Tanner can do that). I do think there should be larger numbers in the office.
However, Milne's article is not analysis, and it's not good journalism. He has taken data and assumed it proves his own assumptions. I realise it was placed under the "opinion" banner in The Australian. Yet, no doubt his assumption in it will find its way into his articles written under the guise of "journalism", and presented as statistical fact. Journalists more and more want to be commentators when it pleases them, and assume the readers are aware of which hat they are wearing.
It's why I like Peter Martin's approach. He writes economic journalism for The Age, and has his own blog which will have opinion. He will often include his Age articles on the blog, but I have yet to see the opinions from his blog surface in The Age.
The mixing of opinion writer and journalist means that it gets to the point where The Australian's political affairs editor Dennis Shanahan can get described on Lateline as a "conservative commentator". For mine such a situation is worse than the cash for comment scandal of talk-back radio hosts; it's hard for readers to know when opinion ends and journalism starts - unlike the radio hosts, Milne and co aren't trying to flog off the latest range of Toyotas.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Did she even read VP for Dummies?
Sarah Palin puts forth another case for her being named the dumbest person ever to hold elected office.
Here's what she said yesterday on a radio show:
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
Yep the media criticising her is an infringement on her right to free speech.
For those not American, here's the First amendment of the American Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See anything in there about how the media or anyone for that matter is not allowed to say Palin's views are a complete crock? Anything in there about how if the media criticise someone for uttering absolute shite that person's rights have been infringed? No?
OK do you see anything there explicitly stating that the freedom of the press shall not be infringed? Oh you do? Well done, you are now more learned on the US Constitution than the Republican's VP candidate.
Does this matter? Of course not - after all all she would have to do is swear the following if she was to be VP:
I, [Vice-President Elect's name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
So she'll just need to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" - can't see how that would require her actually understanding it. I mean she attacks things she doesn't understand, so she'll have no problems defending things without knowing what it is she defends.
Apparently some in the Republican Party think she should be aiming for the 2012 election. I say, oh please let it be so. Obama would be a chance to win 50 states.
Here's what she said yesterday on a radio show:
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
Yep the media criticising her is an infringement on her right to free speech.
For those not American, here's the First amendment of the American Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See anything in there about how the media or anyone for that matter is not allowed to say Palin's views are a complete crock? Anything in there about how if the media criticise someone for uttering absolute shite that person's rights have been infringed? No?
OK do you see anything there explicitly stating that the freedom of the press shall not be infringed? Oh you do? Well done, you are now more learned on the US Constitution than the Republican's VP candidate.
Does this matter? Of course not - after all all she would have to do is swear the following if she was to be VP:
I, [Vice-President Elect's name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
So she'll just need to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" - can't see how that would require her actually understanding it. I mean she attacks things she doesn't understand, so she'll have no problems defending things without knowing what it is she defends.
Apparently some in the Republican Party think she should be aiming for the 2012 election. I say, oh please let it be so. Obama would be a chance to win 50 states.
Friday, October 31, 2008
There’s no ‘I’ in bureaucracy
My youngest daughter has Down Syndrome, so I am always very aware of any major news stories concerning people with DS. Quite often my bullshit meter is on high alert as well to see how people with DS are treated by the media. Mostly this is because I got sick very quickly, when we first found out that she had DS, of people telling us how “they” are such beautiful people; “they” are so loving and kind. My daughter was a week old and she had already been pigeonholed into a group – she was a plural seemingly forever denied the right to be singular.
I can remember thinking, “How do you know she’ll be lovely – she might grow up to be a total bitch?” In fact I resented that people discounted her even the chance to be a bit bitchy, or miserable, or grumpy, or anything other than “so loving; so kind”.
Now of course it turns out, that while she is only 2, I can say that she is an absolutely lovely little girl, who makes the world a better place when she smiles. But when she is at day care she’ll also let the other kids know when she is playing with a toy and isn’t really in a mood to share, so I remain hopeful that she will grow up to be a strong woman who (while hopefully not bitchy!) is not just some gormless “so loving, so kind” girl whom people will just pigeonhole. If she is loving and kind (which I know she will be) it will be because she is; not because they are.
In short, she is a person. She is an individual.
I am equally alert to stories where people use family members with DS to claim some greater knowledge. And yes, I’m looking at you Sarah Palin.
Palin’s youngest son, Trig, aside from being saddled with the dumbest name in Christendom, also has DS. He’s 6 months old and apparently this now makes her an expert on special-needs children:
As she said in her VP debate:
"To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."
Well maybe she is. All I know is in the first 6 months after our daughter’s birth, my wife and I felt anything but expert on the needs of special kids (and in fact still don't feel that way). Similarly I don't consider myself to be an expert on car safety because I wear a seat belt every time I drive, or I’m an educational policy whiz because I went to school.
John McCain brought his usual gravy like clarity to the subject in his debate by saying Palin
"understands special-needs families," said McCain. "She understands that autism is on the rise, that we've got to find out what's causing it, and we've got to reach out to these families, and help them, and give them the help they need as they raise these very special needs children. She understands that better than almost any American that I know."
To which I wondered, when did DS mean autism? And yeah I know there is a high degree of overlap, and a number of the issues are the same, but geez, he might have well referred to his remival of a melanoma and said he has a good understanding of ovarian cancer.
Having served in a war doesn’t make someone a good president, and having a child with DS certainly doesn’t make you an expert on special needs – you may be more aware of the problems, but I certainly don’t have any more solutions than I would have had I talked to a stack of people/groups involved with DS (you know what you’re supposed to do when developing policy).
Now all of this is a round about way of getting to the issue of the day – that of a German doctor working in Horsham being denied a permanent visa because his son has DS.
Boy the media went into a spin with this. And I must admit as a father of a girl with DS I was pretty angry this morning while reading the articles. The blogs got involved – Andrew Bolt wrote a pretty measured one – he didn’t criticize the government, but just said how irrational it all was. His readers, however, mostly went in head first decrying the Rudd Government – saying if the doctor was Indian he’d be allowed to stay etc etc.
Most of them missed the fact that the decision was a bureaucratic one (the Minister certainly would not have been aware), it was subject to appeal and only then would/could the Minister for Immigration get involved and overturn it (if that didn't happen at the appeal stage). And it also wasn’t like there is a huge rush – Dr Moeller's temporary visa runs out in 2010.
However, I was glad to see Nicola Roxon getting involved very early, as the dopiness of denying a doctor to stay in a country because his son might need medical help requires leaps of logic only possible within the bureaucracy.
The real issue here is not the Rudd Government, but the Dept of Immigration and Citizenship. This dept has always had a problem with acronyms – they used to be the Dept of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, or DIMA (always pronounced as Deema rather than Dim ah). Now its acronym is DIC, but they most certainly do not use that.
This department under the Howard Government was an embarrassment to Australia, and the public service; it was the department where your soul went to die.
The problem in this case is that you can’t really allow people to migrate to Australia if it seems like they are doing it merely to use our health system. It would be wonderful if we could bring the world in, but it’s not going to happen; thus people with medical conditions are always going to have struggle through hoops to get in.
The problem with the policy is that it is unlikely Dr Moeller’s son Lukas would be a “drain on the medical system” – most intensive medical needs for DS kids are very early on when they often need operations on their hearts or bowels. But even this is not a given – thankfully our daughter did not need any such operations.
Which brings us to the real problem – the department has viewed Lukas Moeller as a plural, and not a singular.
I can remember thinking, “How do you know she’ll be lovely – she might grow up to be a total bitch?” In fact I resented that people discounted her even the chance to be a bit bitchy, or miserable, or grumpy, or anything other than “so loving; so kind”.
Now of course it turns out, that while she is only 2, I can say that she is an absolutely lovely little girl, who makes the world a better place when she smiles. But when she is at day care she’ll also let the other kids know when she is playing with a toy and isn’t really in a mood to share, so I remain hopeful that she will grow up to be a strong woman who (while hopefully not bitchy!) is not just some gormless “so loving, so kind” girl whom people will just pigeonhole. If she is loving and kind (which I know she will be) it will be because she is; not because they are.
In short, she is a person. She is an individual.
I am equally alert to stories where people use family members with DS to claim some greater knowledge. And yes, I’m looking at you Sarah Palin.
Palin’s youngest son, Trig, aside from being saddled with the dumbest name in Christendom, also has DS. He’s 6 months old and apparently this now makes her an expert on special-needs children:
As she said in her VP debate:
"To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."
Well maybe she is. All I know is in the first 6 months after our daughter’s birth, my wife and I felt anything but expert on the needs of special kids (and in fact still don't feel that way). Similarly I don't consider myself to be an expert on car safety because I wear a seat belt every time I drive, or I’m an educational policy whiz because I went to school.
John McCain brought his usual gravy like clarity to the subject in his debate by saying Palin
"understands special-needs families," said McCain. "She understands that autism is on the rise, that we've got to find out what's causing it, and we've got to reach out to these families, and help them, and give them the help they need as they raise these very special needs children. She understands that better than almost any American that I know."
To which I wondered, when did DS mean autism? And yeah I know there is a high degree of overlap, and a number of the issues are the same, but geez, he might have well referred to his remival of a melanoma and said he has a good understanding of ovarian cancer.
Having served in a war doesn’t make someone a good president, and having a child with DS certainly doesn’t make you an expert on special needs – you may be more aware of the problems, but I certainly don’t have any more solutions than I would have had I talked to a stack of people/groups involved with DS (you know what you’re supposed to do when developing policy).
Now all of this is a round about way of getting to the issue of the day – that of a German doctor working in Horsham being denied a permanent visa because his son has DS.
Boy the media went into a spin with this. And I must admit as a father of a girl with DS I was pretty angry this morning while reading the articles. The blogs got involved – Andrew Bolt wrote a pretty measured one – he didn’t criticize the government, but just said how irrational it all was. His readers, however, mostly went in head first decrying the Rudd Government – saying if the doctor was Indian he’d be allowed to stay etc etc.
Most of them missed the fact that the decision was a bureaucratic one (the Minister certainly would not have been aware), it was subject to appeal and only then would/could the Minister for Immigration get involved and overturn it (if that didn't happen at the appeal stage). And it also wasn’t like there is a huge rush – Dr Moeller's temporary visa runs out in 2010.
However, I was glad to see Nicola Roxon getting involved very early, as the dopiness of denying a doctor to stay in a country because his son might need medical help requires leaps of logic only possible within the bureaucracy.
The real issue here is not the Rudd Government, but the Dept of Immigration and Citizenship. This dept has always had a problem with acronyms – they used to be the Dept of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, or DIMA (always pronounced as Deema rather than Dim ah). Now its acronym is DIC, but they most certainly do not use that.
This department under the Howard Government was an embarrassment to Australia, and the public service; it was the department where your soul went to die.
The problem in this case is that you can’t really allow people to migrate to Australia if it seems like they are doing it merely to use our health system. It would be wonderful if we could bring the world in, but it’s not going to happen; thus people with medical conditions are always going to have struggle through hoops to get in.
The problem with the policy is that it is unlikely Dr Moeller’s son Lukas would be a “drain on the medical system” – most intensive medical needs for DS kids are very early on when they often need operations on their hearts or bowels. But even this is not a given – thankfully our daughter did not need any such operations.
Which brings us to the real problem – the department has viewed Lukas Moeller as a plural, and not a singular.
The best voice on this was Down Syndrome Victoria executive officer Catherine McAlpine who said the decision was “disgraceful and discriminatory”:
“The Department are not looking at Lukas as an individual or seeing his potential. Instead, they are making assumptions based on their outmoded understanding of intellectual disability,” she said.
Spot on.
Look, the issues immigration has to deal with are incredibly hard, and I have a lot of sympathy for the people working in the Department. By its very nature the Department is concerned with the plurality of the nation, but if it is a department that doesn’t also have a focus on people as individuals, then it ain’t worth spit, and needs a major overhaul.
The message on this case from the Department is fairly standard, but the Minister (Chris Evans) does seem to be looking at improving things:
Spot on.
Look, the issues immigration has to deal with are incredibly hard, and I have a lot of sympathy for the people working in the Department. By its very nature the Department is concerned with the plurality of the nation, but if it is a department that doesn’t also have a focus on people as individuals, then it ain’t worth spit, and needs a major overhaul.
The message on this case from the Department is fairly standard, but the Minister (Chris Evans) does seem to be looking at improving things:
"A spokesman for the minister said he could only intervene after the tribunal hearing, but in the meantime the department was reviewing its powers to grant waivers on a strict health requirement for people in the skilled-migrant category seeking permanent residency.
The minister asked for advice on the issue of waivers some week ago, as he has received several requests for ministerial intervention by people with pre-existing medical conditions in the short time he has been minister."
I am sure this decision will be overturned – either on appeal or by the Minister. It’s such an obviously wrong decision.
But what is of more importance is that the Evans shakes up his department – and improves the culture of the place. Officials do need to abide by the rulings (as they did in this case) – in fact if they didn’t there would be more hell to pay. But there needs to be more scope and understanding to realise when the rules are wrong – either for individual cases or across the board – and to know that there needs to be exceptions or changes made.
I don’t criticize the Government on this – though if it turns out that Dr Moeller does have to go back to Germany, I’ll struggle to vote ALP next time round – but this is Strike One on a Department that already has a bad history, and one which needs reform. Admittedly this is a small slip because the process hasn’t even been completed – but the next stuff up by the Department should have the public wondering what Evans has been doing – he won’t be able to say he didn’t know there were problems.
Above all he has to be able to find the singular within the plural.
And Rudd should perhaps remind Evans, that if he can’t find it, there’s a few singular individuals on the ALP's Backbench at the moment that I am sure gladly would.
But what is of more importance is that the Evans shakes up his department – and improves the culture of the place. Officials do need to abide by the rulings (as they did in this case) – in fact if they didn’t there would be more hell to pay. But there needs to be more scope and understanding to realise when the rules are wrong – either for individual cases or across the board – and to know that there needs to be exceptions or changes made.
I don’t criticize the Government on this – though if it turns out that Dr Moeller does have to go back to Germany, I’ll struggle to vote ALP next time round – but this is Strike One on a Department that already has a bad history, and one which needs reform. Admittedly this is a small slip because the process hasn’t even been completed – but the next stuff up by the Department should have the public wondering what Evans has been doing – he won’t be able to say he didn’t know there were problems.
Above all he has to be able to find the singular within the plural.
And Rudd should perhaps remind Evans, that if he can’t find it, there’s a few singular individuals on the ALP's Backbench at the moment that I am sure gladly would.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Election 08: Not long now...
Barack Obama was interviewed on Jon Stewart last night; but before the interview he does a great clip on the McCain campaign and the tendency of Palin to "go rogue", and also the fact that "Joe the Plumber" is an ignorant fool (and McCain equally so even thinking the guy has anything worthwhile to say).
Before that - what the hell is wrong with "spreading the wealth"? And how in the hell is that socialism? Apparently living in a free society means I keep everything I earn and bugger the rest of you. Beautiful. Fantastic. Good luck building your own road; or your own school, hospital, sewerage system... Geez America! I swear the way the right-wing nuts are going, by the 2012 election believing in democracy will be viewed as dangerously left wing.
Here's the Obama interview. His background is straight out of Yes Prime Minister. In one episode Jim Hacker is about to give a Ministerial broadcast. When it comes to devising the set he is given the following advice:
"you should emphasise the one you're not. Or the one people are in danger of thinking you're not. So, if you're changing a lot of things, you want to look reassuring and traditional. Therefore you should have a dark suit and an oak panelled background and leather books. But if you're not doing anything new, you'd want a light modern suit and a modern high-tech setting with abstract paintings"
Obama's slogan all year has been "Change". His slogan now is "Change we need!"
So check out his suit and the background to see what he's trying to emphasise...
In the interview he referred to a campaign speech with Bill Clinton. Below is Clinton's introduction of Obama. It's a good introduction by a guy who obviously would be deeply cut that Hillary didn't get the nomination (and in my opinion she would be killing McCain as well if not better than Obama).
Before that - what the hell is wrong with "spreading the wealth"? And how in the hell is that socialism? Apparently living in a free society means I keep everything I earn and bugger the rest of you. Beautiful. Fantastic. Good luck building your own road; or your own school, hospital, sewerage system... Geez America! I swear the way the right-wing nuts are going, by the 2012 election believing in democracy will be viewed as dangerously left wing.
Here's the Obama interview. His background is straight out of Yes Prime Minister. In one episode Jim Hacker is about to give a Ministerial broadcast. When it comes to devising the set he is given the following advice:
"you should emphasise the one you're not. Or the one people are in danger of thinking you're not. So, if you're changing a lot of things, you want to look reassuring and traditional. Therefore you should have a dark suit and an oak panelled background and leather books. But if you're not doing anything new, you'd want a light modern suit and a modern high-tech setting with abstract paintings"
Obama's slogan all year has been "Change". His slogan now is "Change we need!"
So check out his suit and the background to see what he's trying to emphasise...
In the interview he referred to a campaign speech with Bill Clinton. Below is Clinton's introduction of Obama. It's a good introduction by a guy who obviously would be deeply cut that Hillary didn't get the nomination (and in my opinion she would be killing McCain as well if not better than Obama).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)